Crack propagation criteria in the framework of X‐FEM‐based structural analyses

170 citations recorded by the source corpus.

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

Modeling three‐dimensional crack propagation—A comparison of crack path tracking strategies (2008, methodology): “Previous discrete failure simulations of this classical benchmark problem can be found, e.g. in Dumstorff and Meschke [43].”
Cohesive and non‐cohesive fracture by higher‐order enrichment of XFEM (2012, methodology): “Here, it is obtained numerically; alternatively, the analytical tangent matrix given in [31] can be used.”
Strong discontinuity embedded approach with standard SOS formulation: Element formulation, energy-based crack-tracking strategy, and validations (2015, background): “Comparisons of numerical results obtained from different crack-tracking strategies can be found in [53,63,62,64].”
On three-dimensional modelling of crack growth using partition of unity methods (2010, background): “[24], Francfort and Marigo [56] and a different one recently in a two-dimensional XFEM context by Dummerstorf and Meschke [48] and Meschke and Dummerstorf [81].”
Finite element modeling of quasi-brittle cracks in 2D and 3D with enhanced strain accuracy (2017, methodology): “In the FE-simulation, the crack propagates as expected from the experimental tests; no spurious mesh bias is observed, although no auxiliary local or global crack tracking techniques is used, nor any initial notch or flaw is imposed in the geometry of the panel to assure the correct crack path at th”